51 comments:

One needn't resort to implications of sexuality to decry Ann Coulter. Just as Rush Drugbaugh has now taken to calling Edwards "Breck Girl", taking these shots at Coulter merely brings liberals to the same low level she exhibits.

I think calling Coulter a tasteless, selfpromoting bore is fine. It may be water off a duck's back (a drake perhaps???) but she has plenty going for her so that even Cheney could do "pull, shoot" and hit the mark.

I think Coulter was way out of line with her slap at Edwards, but it is hard to take many of her critics. Insults of her that I have read from people who proudly proclaim their progressivity include "Ann the Man" , "Mann Coulter", and "Annie the Tranny"

I have never read any of Coulter's books, I just don't trust her to keep things honest and in proper context any more than I trust Michael Moore to do the same thing.

This constant reference to Ann Coulters “real” sexuality is something I see constant reference to in the GLBT blogosphere. I don’t like it much because I think she is a beautiful women & people are to harsh in criticizing women’s looks – but accusing them of really being a man is way over the top.

Lots of such references appear in the GLBT world about multiple inferences as to people’s sexual identity/true nature. I believe this serves the cause in as much as it works both as a weapon & feeds the ego’s of the gay world by a “we’re in the know, secret club, gaydar” type sentiment.

This seems to be part of the power of the term “homophobia” – It is both a accusation of bigotry while at the same time calling the accused “real” sexuality into question.

Nothing new about the Breck Girl tag for Edwards. It was in common usage during the 2004 election on conservative talk radio, esp., I believe by Rush. Not surprised though that Paglia laid into Coulter, since Edwards is apparently her dog in this contest. Heaven knows though how she can take him seriously though, esp. with his single campaign line of Two Americas, esp. as he is so obviously living in the first one.

What is interesting though is that despite being an obvious partisan here, she admits openly that the MSM (except for the despised Fox) are totally in the tank for the Democrats. I also found it interesting that she listens to Drudge.

Did anyone see (couple weekends past?) C-Span lecture by Camille Paglia on the arts in America. I always liked her, and it was a pretty good talk.

FYI – It was Laura Ingram (I believe) who first started calling The Kerry/Edwards ticket “lurch (from the Addams family) & “shinny pony” – which I still find hilarious. Rush Breck girl comment is within bounds also. (its all about the hair) Coulter and the epithet however is out of bounds.

Re: "The Breck Girl" moniker. I think Rush popularized it, but I'm almost certain he did not originate it. His wife, Elizabeth may have referred to him that way and his campaign aides the last time handed out little bottles of Breck shampoo to the media. He's not going to cry foul on a self-inflicted wound.

I'm not much of a Paglia reader, but her unwillingness to hit all the expected left-right marks is interesting, if nothing else.

What is this morbid obsession that liberals have with Fox? It's as if Democrats, pampered and spoiled by so many decades of the mainstream media trumpeting the liberal agenda, are so shaky in their convictions that they cannot risk an encounter with opposing views. Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding. But no, that's not enough -- every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile.

I'm glad these thoughts were expressed in Salon, regarding the Democrats' reaction to Fox News hosting their debate.

She also wrote:

What in tarnation was the Hillary Clinton camp thinking when it threw a tantrum about Hollywood producer David Geffen making a few critical remarks about her to a fagged-out media scold? Most people in this country have never heard of David Geffen and don't give a damn about whether or not he defects to Barack Obama.

Probably true, although I thought Geffen had greater name recognition than that -- but I was in the music biz, so my perspective would be skewed. And I'll admit that referring to Maureen Dowd as "fagged-out" confuses me. Obviously, Paglia's views on gender issues are a bit more, shall we say, elaborate than those of your average human.

(Semi-related digression: Over Christmas, a college-age friend of my college-age niece mentioned with dismay that she could only take one semester of Gender Studies at her school, instead of two. I was about to say, "That's probably because there are just so few genders," but thought the better of it.)

First of all Feinstein's had too many facelifts. Her husband has all kinds of skeletons---funny money, conflicts graft etc..(the usual). And, most importantly, there's been no significant legislation coming out of her office in the last 15 years. On the contrary, you can trace the destruction of California directly to her taking office.

BURLAP: I wrote about Burlap last fall. It's the new Cotton! Burlap is everywhere, it's the hot new thing. Everyone out her is swathing themselves in it, slathering beige burlap on walls and floor treatments, table clothes etc..

Burlap is big, just as I forecast it would be, a full 7 months before Paglia even gets around to noticing!

I enjoy reading both Paglia and Coulter- what does that mean? That I enjoy hard-hitting, no pulling punches, cut the bullshit, at times vitriol-filled commentary? Yeah I guess that is it. Professor Althouse supplies her share of that too.

I like to think it is honest, gritty insightful opinion with a dash of emotion and heart. I don't get that from beltway pundits or talking-points party operatives.

I can see why Coulter generates such animosity amongst her detractors. Certainly, she aims to achieve exactly this effect.

Nevertheless, to meet her invective with a return volley of the same bile, is merely to complain that one's ox is being gored. That is, one is not claiming any general principle of moral argumentation or ethical behavior, instead this devolves into a junior high slap fest.

As a result, one is left simply complaining that one side has better insults than the other. In that manner, Coulter is correct in her methods. To reject her methods, one must not repeat her methods.

I see little difference between calling Edwards a fag and calling Coulter a tranny. While one does not need to be polite to people who do not warrant such grace, you can't simultaneously complain about Edwards being called a "shiny pony" and then call her "Man Coulter".

Otherwise you have nothing to stand on, just more "bile from me, but not from thee" nonsense. Either that method of discourse is okay, or it's not.

Hold the phone!!! Who is Paglia callin' a tranny?Yes but read the next sentence: "Coulter is a smart woman with formidable energy, and whether liberals like it or not, she is a high-profile feminist role model in her appetite for aggressive debate." Both descriptions are perfectly applicable to Paglia as well and she has always admitted her gender-ambivalence (exulted in it, you might say). So the implication of hypocrisy is out of place.

I'm glad Paglia is back but I wish she would get a real blog and stop messing about with these Salon folks.

The agile, articulate Greta, with her keen legal mind and rugged, strong-jawed persistence...

Has no one noticed the "strong-jawed" comment about Greta van Susteren. Is it just a coincidence that Paglia referred to Great as having "strong-jawed persistence" when she has those dental implants that make her talk out one side of her mouth?

The thing that troubles me is that the people who hurl "transvestite!" at Ann Coulter as an INSULT generally consider themselves supporters of the GLBT community. Diversity training and safe space and "straight but not narrow" and Brandon Teena and all that.

I assume they're lying to someone--that their true feelings are anti-transpeople and slamming Ann Coulter is a "safe" way to let the feeling out without startling their friends (or maybe they find her attractive and their psyches can't handle it).

I agree. That tendency has been noted before in matters of race and gender. I've always thought this was a curious way for supposedly progressive and thoughtful people to engage in debate. I understand name calling and all that, but the liberal use of terms that would in any other setting be termed racist, sexist, or "creating a hostile environment" simply exposes the writer for what he or she is.

That is, not a true believer, but an unprincipled cynic. Such a person does not actually believe in their message, they merely want the power to enforce their message. In reality, it could be any message at all. Internal consistency and probity are therefore not required, for the message is merely a path to power.

Offensive? Well, I thought Paglia's take on Coulter was quite astute: And like it or not (particularly on her slovenly books that should not be on any respectable publisher's non-fiction list), I don't think I'm the only person to observe that much of Coulter's hard-right fan club would probably s**t their pants and call for an exorcist if their daughters or wives displayed such 'unwomanly' agression and a dress sense that is far from modest.

Are you sure you're a psychologist? A) It's Asperger's syndrome, and not Apserger, andB) I thought that psychologists (with the exception of rightwing nutbag ones like dr. helen and dr. sanity) had some ethics about not diagnosing people that you haven't met.

I have to say that A) and B) are considered perfectly fine by 48 year olds that still live in their parent's basement.

I actually read 3/4 of it. I read everything but the last part, the one about Evolution.

The book didn't feel the least bit "slapped together". As a matter of fact every single paragraph in that book is foot-noted. I was actually irritated at having to turn to the back after every paragraph to read the extensive "notes" section. (I go over everything with a fine-tooth-comb, though)

So, I don't know what Paglia's talking about when she slams Coulter's book.

Godless was very stirring, and thoughtful, but extremely (overly) researched.

In addition to the usual Coulter one-liners.

As for this F-word imbroglio. The whole thing is so maudlin, with all these people claiming they've some how been "effected" and injured by the word.

Yes I have, and I see no reason to change my opinion that Coulter's books - like Michael Moore's - should not be on any respectable publisher's non-fiction list. Sorry, but I thought Paglia was right: Coulter is smart enough to write a carefully argued and coherent book (though one I may vehemently disagree with), but I don't think she really bothers - and her publishers don't demand it of her. Disjointed ranting that's just about tolerable in a 800 word column is near unreadable in what's supposed to be a full-length book of political advocacy.

And, Maxine, David Irving's works of Holocaust denial are full of foot and endnotes too. What a shame that he's been proved to either systematically distort, or outright falsify material that doesn't fit his thesis. Professor Althouse might like to chime in on why that's generally frowned on the academic community.

Maxine: As for this F-word imbroglio. The whole thing is so maudlin, with all these people claiming they've some how been "effected" and injured by the word.

The socially conservative right-wing hates gay people. It's not that Coulter saying a joke injures people. It's that she's appauded and supported, and she represents, a major element of the Right that can't stand gay people and denies them equal rights under the law. Every time I vote for a Republican I feel some amount of guilt because Republicans are in bed with such people.

Reality Check went back to his old ways after one salient, well written post and typed: "Hey Trey,

Are you sure you're a psychologist?"

Yes, I am indeed sure. In fact, it is never a question for me, my patients, or the people who pay me every day. It does seem to be a question for you though! Most people have other, more weighty questions that plague them: Is there a God, What is the true nature of mankind, Why can't the liberal ideologues take a joke? But I am flatered by your fascination with the status of my vocation. It is nice to have a fan.

"A) It's Asperger's syndrome, and not Apserger,"

Thanks for catching the typo. My dyslexia makes me one of the world's worst at catching them. I could pay you a couple of bucks an hour to do it on a regular basis!

"B) I thought that psychologists (with the exception of rightwing nutbag ones like dr. helen and dr. sanity) had some ethics about not diagnosing people that you haven't met."

Well, there is the problem, you are confusing what you do with thinking! As I have posted before, a diagnosis is a formal matter, not coffee talk. This is coffee talk, kool aide in your case, as the coffee is hot and can scald.

Nut bag?!? Are you calling us scrotums? What is a nutbag? I tried dictionary.com but all I got was "There are no dictionary entries for nut bag, but nut, bag are spelled correctly." While it was a minor victory that I spelled both words correctly, I was still mystified. So I persevered.

On google I found the urban dictionary and these definitions: "a female who likes to give oral sex" and "someone who does the thorazine shuffle, and talks to stuff." Well, I am a man, so that rules out the first, so I guess you mean the second.

While you are dumb as a post, I think you are indeed animate. Also, I have never required thorazine or any other anti-psychotic medications, thank God and my patience with knee jerk ankle biters such as yourself.

"I have to say that A) and B) are considered perfectly fine by 48 year olds that still live in their parent's basement."

Not sure where you meant to be going with that insult pal. I am 47, so you were close on my age! Bravo! Sadly, my parents are deceased and they did not have a basement. And I am not sure my family would fit in the basement if it did indeed exist. But I would LOVE to have my parents back and would give living in their basement a try to have them with me again.

But keep posting, I figure in another 400 or so you will come up with another excellent post like the one you made recently on global warming.

As for this F-word imbroglio. The whole thing is so maudlin, with all these people claiming they've some how been "effected" and injured by the word.

Maxine: Well, I guess it's now open season to call you a 'c**t', 'anorexic whore', 'retarded bitch' or 'drag queen features' when I disgaree with you.

Interesting side bar, though, I saw Coulter on Hannity & Colmes and she quite visibly bristled when asked if she'd have stood up at C-PAC and described Barack Obama using a (unspecifified but clearly implied) racial slur. I don't think that was put on, she wouldn't call Obama a 'nigger' or 'boy', let alone try and spin that as a 'schoolyard taunt'.

What's that about, Maxine? Why is it that when she was looking to cast aspersions on John Edwards' masculinity, the F-bomb was dropped without a second thought?